As you can tell, I have FINALLY figured out how to do expandable posts. Blogger makes this incredibly hard, but I managed it with the help of Hackosphere, who asks in return only that I link to their site. Hooray!
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Well-Earned Shout-Out
Whom I'm Thankful For: Animated Edition
Inspired by a lovely TV-and-movie critic I know who is working on an end-of-the-year list, I thought I'd try my own compilation. So I shall here list my favorite female TV characters of all time. The criteria were a mix: embodiment of feminist principles, coolness, strength, intelligence, importance, making it in a man's world, badassosity, and my personal affection. In short, characters who made me say, "She's so frickin' awesome!" and who made me feel cooler about being a girl. And extra points for any character I dressed as for Halloween. I've decided to make a separate list for animated shows, since they were highly represented! So, without further ado: Oh man, I loved this broad. Oh man, I STILL love this broad. Not the game show or the video game version (though I loved them by association)--the cartoon series version. The version where she was voiced by Rita Moreno and always got away. Not only was she an outlaw and a rebel, she was smart, witty, badass, cucumber-cool, and could operate solo just as well as with her legions of overly-appropriately-named henchpeople. The secret to her success? In her own words: "Think out your plan like a woman of action--act out your plan like a woman of thought." (In 8th grade it meant so much to me that I could quote that and it specifically said woman.) Her pride was sometimes an asset, sometimes a liability, and her refusal to use violence opened the door to 100% likeability for girls like me. And she taught me about female pirates! Halloween costume? Check--11th grade. Truth be told, I would be her anyday. 3) Rogue (X-Men) Storm was too Spock-like, Jean unforgivably lame for preferring Cyclops to Wolverine. But Rogue? She was a firecracker, had awesome powers (flight, invulnerability, super strength) and an awesome backstory, plus the affections (however star-crossed) of Gambit, who was let's-be-honest SO FRICKIN HOT OMG. But I digress. The serious downside of her power (draining people's strength=not so much with the smooching) only made it cooler that she held onto that southern charm--and Gambit dug her even if she couldn't put out. I would be her for H-ween in a second if I thought I could pull off the unitard. 4) Ivy (Where on Earth Is Carmen Sandiego?) 6) Officer Renée Montoya (Batman: The Animated Series) Even before she was outed in a comic book, I knew Montoya was the real deal. She would probably be higher on this list if she'd been in the cartoon a little more, but she certainly wasn't neglected. A foil to the sloppy and pig-headed Bullock (pictured), she was the only one of Gotham's Finest besides Gordon whom Batman, and the audience, could totally trust. When suspended due to a mysteriously botched bust involving Batman, Montoya pursued the case even without gun and badge, and was proven right in the end. A resolutely tough cop, she was still undeniably human--in one episode, upon hearing the (false) news of Batman's death, she allows herself a rare moment of vulnerabilty, not just in front of us, but in front of Bullock. Far grittier and more interesting than, say, Bat Girl--in part because she's a creature of reality and not fantasy--it's no wonder she got more attention in 52. 7) Daria Morgendorffer (Daria) If I sounded critical of Ms. Morgendorffer before, well, the greatest heroes are flawed. But who could not relate to this girl, whose chirpy, popular younger sister derides her as a "brain," whose parents and teachers don't understand why she can't put down the books and hit the pep rally...whose friend Jane has a dreamy musician older brother who would never be right for her but...oh Trent...drool... Sorry, where was I? Right. As the series went on, her character actually developed (!) and she was more than just a collection of deadpan quips. But her words from the first episode are still the most telling: "I don't have low self-esteem! I have low esteem for everyone else." Who hasn't been there? (Halloween: two years ago.) 8) Aeon Flux (Aeon Flux) Do I really have to explain this one? She's a renegade, a double agent, on no one's side but her own, she kicks ass in EPIC AMOUNTS and her sexuality is totally her own. And don't let the ridiculous fetish garb fool you--business comes first. In this strange totalitarian regime run by her on-again, off-again lover Trevor, she might appreciate boning for old times' sake, but fond feelings don't mean she won't put a bullet in your head. Plus, the show is SO WEIRD. But I think I'll pass on Halloween for this one. 9) American Maid (The Tick) [Sorry for all the links...man I love this show.]
1) Carmen Sandiego (Where on Earth Is Carmen Sandiego?)
2) She-Ra (She-Ra)
The obvious choice. This Princess of Power was a revolutionary, fighting against a tyrannical sorcerer and his Evil Horde and...ok I actually remember very little of this cartoon, just that I loved it. Even at a tender age I realized she kicked ass, and that women with swords are H-O-T. During recess my fiancée (we were 5) would pretend to be He-Man, and I She-Ra. Not at the same time, though--they were twins after all. (Halloween? Yep, when I was like 6!)
I have a great attraction to sidekicks. And like many sidekicks, Daria Morgendorffer's artsy friend Jane was the coolest character on the show. This gravelly-voiced, alternative-looking lady was just as sarcastic and principled as Daria, but you got the strong feeling that she was an outcast because she WANTED to be, not because she had to be. Though a scholastic underachiever, she was a gifted artist and, in one episode, a track star (before quitting out of disgust that athletes were given academic shortcuts), and when she wanted to she did well with boys. In an early episode she meets a guy at a party and promptly makes out with him in the laundry room, and you know that's behavior I approve. In a later episode they even addressed the burning Would-Jane-Sleep-With-A-Girl question. (The answer was no, but it was impressive that they broached the subject.) Perhaps most importantly, she was a crucial foil to her bespectacled best friend. She actually had interests and wanted to DO things--and she often got Daria to step a little bit outside all those fences she put between herself and the world. Way to send the message that high school may be lame, but you don't have to be.
I hope you all know this show--if not, you definitely owe it to yourselves. If you are familiar with the escapades of that giant blue moron, you will also remember American Maid, the only competent superhero living in The City. The "World's Most Patriotic Domestic" was your go-to girl-- she had strength, agility, and a tactician's level head. Though she'd roll her eyes at the ineptitude of Die Fledermaus, Sewer Urchin, and The Tick himself, she never hesitated to dive in with them, whether battling Chairface Chippendale or checking out that new superhero nightclub. But just when you think she's all-business and too cool for this crowd, her constant bickering with Die Feldermaus (obviously her ex) would interfere at a climactic moment, and you'd love her all the more. Halloween? Last year! I got recognized, like, once, but it was worth it.
10) April O’Neill (Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles)
Honorable Mention: Detective Elisa Maza (Gargoyles)
She probably should've made the main list, but I never reallygot into the show, despite having seen a fair amount of it. (This guy my frosh year bought the whole series off eBay and hosted "Watchings.") This tough-as-nails NYC cop braved the normal gunfire and undercover sting operations, and on top of it faced all sorts of magical, paranormal, and biorobotic danger due to her April-O'Neill-esque friendship with Goliath and his stony crew. Of course, April never fell in love with Leonardo, which is what truly gives Elisa her edge. Oh, and the badass detective stuff, the ability to beat people up, the cool head and the low voice.* And I just found out she's half African-American, half Native American! Okay, she definitely deserves to be on the main list, probably in the Top Five, but I don't have quite the emotional attachment to her so here she'll stay. It was stiff competition.
Next time: Live action!
*Actually, a lot of these ladies had low/rich/gravelly voices. Interesting.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Quote Of The Day
“To say you’re not a feminist is virtually the same thing as saying you’re a racist.”
~Christine Hefner
Amen. A little surprising from the CEO of Playboy, but not inherently contradictory.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Mythbuster: U.S. Off Of My Clitoris!
I just now went on a bit about Betty Dodson. One aspect of her Bust column that particularly irks me (other than an aforementioned anatomical nick-name) is her dismissal of vaginal orgasms. Maureen Dowd, too, talks about women trying to have "male orgasms"--ie, vaginal orgasms, achieved purely through penetration. Dodson, more so than Dowd*, seems to have flipped things over, implying that if vaginal orgasms are "male," clitoral orgasms are "female."
I'll tell you a story. Freshman year I separated my shoulder (yay rugby!) and went to the hospital. I think this put me on some kind of list. Two separate times, I got a call from a man claiming to be from that hospital, wanting me to be part of a Kinsey-esque survey about my sexuality. Honestly, I have no idea if he was legit, and he said one or two things that seemed unprofessional or weird**. But I realized I didn't much care--you may not have realized this about me, but I don't mind talking about sex. (I have to actually think someone is interested, but if there's no fear of TMI I can go on about such things forever.) One thing annoyed me, though: he made me choose between clitoral and vaginal stimulation. At first I refused to make Sophie's Choice, but he pressed and I reluctantly had to go with clitoral. Which I guess is true IN THAT I can get off from solely-clitoral play more reliably than solely-vaginal play. BUT I think I maybe prefer penetration, once I've been warmed up. (TMI? Just checking.) On the subject of how to tell a guy how to get you off, one Six Feet Under character put it pithily: "Lick my clit while you finger me." And few people can argue. But how many women are content to stop there? Don't most straight women still want some train-in-tunnel action?
Thus, the myth: that ANY kind of orgasm is superior to ANY OTHER kind of orgasm. So, it's a myth that, in every case, oral pleases the woman while penetration pleases the man, and it's a myth that a woman who can't come from penetration is somehow sexually remedial. Come on, people, we gotta depoliticize this shit. One of the reasons feminists tend to hate on Freud is that he derided clitoral arousal as neurotic (his thinking being, the clitoris is like the penis, so women who prefer clitoral stimulation just haven't resolved their penis envy). But is it any less tyrannical to flip that around?
To return to Bust, every issue contains a "One-Handed Read," ie a short piece of erotica intended as masturbation fodder. Sometimes, these stories involve a man going down on a woman and asking nothing in return. Which is the fantasy of many, to be sure, but it leaves me cold. "Needs more cock," I say to myself, as though tasting a soup. I mean, I've got lady parts on hand at all times--have clit, will travel. If you're painting me a word-picture...you gotta throw me a bone.
(Badum-ching.)
*Quoth Maureen, "I think it took a really long time for women to realize that the superior kind [of orgasm] is the kind you can actually have."
**For example, upon learning I masturbated regularly, he concluded that my sex life "wasn't doing it" for me. Which is bizarre coming from a guy--don't y'all famously masturbate no matter what? And I believe statistics show that people in relationships jerk off more than single people, regardless of gender, so you'd think someone doing a survey would know that.
Generation Gaps
I was wondering recently (again, to Kyle) about whether Second Wave feminists can now be counted as Third Wave feminists if they uphold the tenets of the younger crowd. Is there an age limit? Is my mom Third Wave? I'm not sure. The most interesting example of this conundrum that I've found is Betty Dodson. A quintessential Second Waver, and one of the first feminists to be specifically pro-sex, she is famous primarily for her books and videos teaching women to masturbate. (These videos involve women of various ages using vibrators and vaginal barbells to achieve orgasm--no euphemisms, nothing hidden, highly instructional...and, trust me, not particularly titillating.)
She's now the sex columnist for Bust, the most assuredly Third Wave magazine. The column's actually not great--it's okay, but repetitive, and I draw the line at the phrase "sweet little clitty"*. But what's most interesting to me is the title: Ask Aunt Betty. The moniker "Aunt" acknowledges that Dodson is from a previous time--she's a benign maternal figure giving friendly advice, but she's not in the trenches with us. It suggests that our parents' generation can't really be called Third Wave. And I find much of her attitude tellingly quaint, especially (as I'm about to discuss in a new Mythbuster!) in her treatment of various kinds of orgasms.
I'm not sure why age should be such a factor. Perhaps it's that, as discussed in Manifesta (I'll find the quote when I get home), young women were so excluded from the movement once it started to age. To me, Riot Grrrl is a true example of the differences between the two waves**, and it was by definition youthful. Women my age, having grown up with an awareness of feminism, have different needs and different longings. All of which is obvious. Is it simply that older women can't relate? Or are we pushing them aside?
Or, perhaps: I've often felt that most Third Wave women (for better and for worse) live feminism rather than fighting for it. If that's part of the ideology, then shared experience is a prerequisite. And that prerequisite exists in many movements, so it's difficult to say whether it's bad or good. But if you have to do in order to be, maybe our foremothers are happy cheering us on from the sidelines.
*Ugh, I could barely stand typing that.
**More on this to come.
Tuesdays With Kyle
[Alternate title: "I like to quote myself. It adds spice to my conversation."*]
I've been writing back and forth with my friend Kyle, and warned him I would poach from our emails. We were discussing the differences between Second Wave and Third Wave views of sexuality, and I came up with this gem:
The old line was, "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle." Today we might say, "A woman needs a [partner-of-any-gender] like a WOMAN needs a bicycle."
Y'know--women don't really NEED a bicycle, but some women WANT a bicycle and enjoy having one, but if it broke or got stolen or whatever it would alter her life rather than ruin it. And a woman without a bicycle isn't looked at as weird. (Though people think it's weird that I literally don't know HOW to ride a bicycle, which is probably symbolic of something or other.)
Kyle was also more eloquent than I on the pros and cons of "I, Slut" so I thought I'd quote him as well, which will cut down on the self-absorption here:
I love what she's saying, but think it could be carried to its logical and unflinching conclusion: some people may go through an occasional "slut phase" which may be good for them and that should absolutely be their prerogative. Some people may choose to make sluthood a perfectly stable and happy way of life, and there's nothing wrong with that choice either, all things being equal. I just get the feeling that she's sort of still implicitly paying lip service to the notion that being a slut is deviating from some more "normal and healthy" state, kind of like Carnival is healthy, but only once a year. I think that's absolutely true for some people, but [The Ethical Slut authors] Dossie Easton and Catherine Liszt might not agree with the sentiment.
Well said. I have never actually read The Ethical Slut: A Guide to Infinite Sexual Possibilities. I do know that the authors define a "slut" as "a person of any gender who has the courage to lead life according to the radical proposition that sex is nice and pleasure is good for you." Which sounds pretty keen. Personally, consensual non-monogamy (aka the "open relationship") is not something I'm looking for, but I admire the people who make it work.**
Hooray for emails that get those blogger juices flowing!
*(George Bernard Shaw)
**When it's actually an open relationship and not just a guy saying, "I'll jerk you around while I screw other people."
Male Feminist of the "Week" #4
(Okay, so it's been a month. Tant pis!)
After having posted on Freud, it only makes sense to follow up with...
Kinsey!
There's a good summary on Nerve right now--basically what you know if you saw the Liam Neeson movie, with added stuff about Kinsey's urethra and the things that went in it. Fun! As I'm sure you know, Alfred Kinsey followed up Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948) with Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (1953). With these two books, Kinsey blasted societal mores and showed the world, based on extensive research, that there was no such thing as "normal"--and that this was perfectly normal.
Given that female sexuality is usually further repressed by society than male sexuality, Kinsey no doubt had even a greater impact for women than he did for men--orgasms, masturbation, homosexuality, all the myths regarding these were exploded. Furthermore, Kinsey made up for Freud's mistakes--he knew the importance of clitoral stimulation, better understood female anatomy, didn't judge the validity of various behaviors, and generally took "neurosis" out of the sexual vernacular. (Or, would eventually--I'm not actually sure how long it took his work to catch on.) And, of course, he expanded upon Freud's insistence that everyone was inherently bisexual--making it a spectrum rather than a hard and fast rule. (Tee hee, "hard and fast!")
To me, Kinsey's work anticipated the Third Wave. Kinsey knew that any consensual sex act was a good one, that whatever kind of orgasm you had it shouldn't be politicized* and that exploration, whenever you were ready for it, was crucial to a healthy life. Amen!
Monday, November 26, 2007
Call Me Aunt Tom?
I used to love Hillary Clinton. Loved her like Michael Moore loved her. When she ran for Senate, I was thrilled. I was pink with pride over having the best pair o' Senators in the nation: Chuck and Hill.
But President Hillary Clinton? Not so much.
So, when did the switch happen? I'm not sure. But I find I do not trust her on domestic issues like gay marriage and civil liberties. Except that I of course DO trust her on the subject of reproductive rights, which I only realized JUST NOW, and that's obviously not a small thing for me and I'm suddenly forgetting the other things I don't trust her on so what gives? Michelle Obama has said that her husband doesn't poll well among African Americans because black people have internalized racist ideas about who our leaders should be. Is that what I'm doing? Why do I find myself pulled towards both Obama and Edwards? In 2004, I called Edwards a mimbo! I started a Facebook group about Obama's lack of experience! Do I really think Clinton's Supreme Court nominees would be any less liberal than Obama's? Don't I trust her most to follow through on issues regarding contraceptives and sex-ed, while Obama and Edwards could well get away with lip-service?
So now I fear that I've just internalized the idea that Presidents are Men. I know liking Obama over Clinton is the hip thing to do, but when all we really care about is beating the Republicans, it's hard to sort things out. All I know is, I saw this post on Hillary's possibly floundering campaign, felt myself cheered by it, and now all of a sudden I can't quite remember why. Good thing I live in a state where primaries don't matter!
So True Who Cares If It's Original
Jezebel just posted on "the streak"--dry spells followed by sex sprees. This has been the story of the last three years of my life. I was celibate for almost TWO YEARS (the first year by choice, the second one less so). And then came the infamous "Party Night Trifecta"--a hook-up Saturday, Friday, and Saturday again, three different guys* in three 'consecutive' nights. And of course, the rain began to pour--old F Friends suddenly called, cute strangers appeared in bars, Irish rock climbing instructors knocked on my hotel door at 2 am**. More than 1/3 of my 'number' can be attributed to the last 7 months--which is not the most flagrant streak ever, but is for sure statistically significant.
This had no cause that I can figure out: this was a full seven months after moving back to NYC, three after Roommate Katey proclaimed 2007 the "Year of Susan B.***", I think before I got that gym membership (or at least at the very beginning), and not proximate to any change in medications, therapy, government regime, or the relationship statuses of friends.
Okay, I suppose the answer is, in fact obvious: once I broke the seal, I remembered how (and why) to get back on that horse again. That first hook-up after a long walk through the desert can seriously whet your thirst. Spark-to-tinder, chink-in-the-dam, etc etc other clichés. After a certain point, who cares? I try to enjoy the ride.
*Though the first one was just making out in a friend's kitchen. On Purim! We may have knocked a pan off the wall (sorry Jake!).
**Ah, the rhetorical device. If only it had in fact been multiple rock climbing instructors.
***Sounds better if you know my real name†.
†Which you all do cuz who else reads this?
Man I Love This Site
Check it out: Best 'Overheard' of the day?
I'm going to use "fridge eggs or baby eggs?" in conversation as much as I possibly can.
Does This Mean Men Want Their Dicks Sharpened?
Again via Feministing, one of the most awful products ever:
I think this is much worse than the infamous Axe mousepad, which while being puerile and nauseating at least implies the pleasuring of a woman*. But this...the screws in the hands and feet, the decapitation, the painful imagery...it makes you wonder, what kind of person would think to make this? Whether or not you think this product is that bad, whether or not it reflects or influences cultural ideas about women, can you imagine waking up and saying, "I have a great idea! A headless naked woman being fucked by a pencil**!" What kind of sick mind dreams that up? Obviously, a violent and misogynist mind, but, to me, being this creative with violence and misogyny is pretty disturbing.
*And hearkens back to our discussion of whether Axe ads are degrading or just dumb! Yeah relevance!
**(And, I don't know, shitting out the shavings? Hard to tell.)
Crisis of Faith
Time to get autobiographical again:
Semi-recently, I hit it off with a guy (friend-of-a-friend) at a party. We exchanged numbers, agreed to get together the following Friday. Awesome!, I was thinking. I felt like a normal person. Someone who could make a date without hooking up! Then I took him home with me.
I wasn't sure why. Moreover, I wasn't sure why I felt bad about it. My friends, the next day, pooh-poohed my ambivalence--which meant something, seeing as I am probably the sluttiest* among them, and they are mostly relationship types. I think part of it was that they liked the idea of me dating this guy, and I was already sensing it was not to be. But also I felt weird because I wasn't sure WHY I brought him home. It was totally my doing, but the situation did not demand it--I wasn't feeling particularly randy** and, as I said, I'd been excited by the chance to NOT hook up with someone. I believed he'd call. I later pretended to think that, because I'd slept with him, he now wouldn't call...but actually I was 10% hoping he wouldn't. And I spent the day genuinely feeling BAD about sleeping with him, and, of course, bad about feeling bad. (My specialty.)
I was thinking about it this morning. And then, providentially, a link via Feministing to the blog of a Women's Studies teacher at a community college. This particular entry recounts his students' reactions to Jessica Valenti's Full Frontal Feminism, which I have sadly not read (because, as I've said, I grew UP on feminism and am only now actually reading theory), though it's next on my list. Anyway, here he describes the response of one student, who's sexual past sometimes had her labeled a slut:
Some of those choices brought her pleasure, she says; others brought her humiliation and hurt. But all brought her further along the road towards becoming a feminist. And reading this section in Full Frontal Feminism moved her deeply. She felt validated. Rather than getting another lecture about her complicity in her own exploitation, from Valenti my student got much-needed affirmation that, in her words, “it’s okay to fuck — and it’s okay to fuck up. We can learn from our fuck-ups.” Nothing I could have said meant as much as what she read in Jessica’s book.
[Original emphasis.]
Now, I'm no adolescent, and my recent history does not involve "humiliation and hurt," per se, but it's good to remember that just because I write a stupid blog and have long been people's Feminist Friend, that doesn't mean my every action--and reaction--has to be exemplary. I'm still not quite sure which I'm talking about--the hook-up or the regret--but both are instructional. Frankly, getting laid used to be difficult (thanks Dalton and Wesleyan!), and I think I'm still not used to the idea that I could like a guy without immediately boning. I have, once or twice this year, not-been-in-the-mood, which is a new experience. But I don't recommend screwing out of habit. And that's my lesson of the day!
*I know, I know.
** I know, I know.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
When You're A Jet (Fan), You're A Jerk All The Way
As a former rugby player, I am fond of exclaiming, "Football is for pussies!" Especially when football players are nowhere nearby. Anyway, this recent Times article (brought to my attention by Roommate Katey) proves that some football is so lame, the fans are even lamer, and only show up to harass women:
Three deep in some areas, they whistled and jumped up and down. Then they began an obscenity-laced chant, demanding that the few women in the gathering expose their breasts. When one woman appeared to be on the verge of obliging, the hooting and hollering intensified. But then she walked away, and plastic beer bottles and spit went flying... “This is the game,” said Patrick Scofield, a 20-year-old from Poughkeepsie, N.Y."
This is apparently the regular ritual (though only for Jets games, never for the Giants), and security guards feel in no way obligated to intervene, even when women get groped. I'm not sure there's much more I can say about this--it speaks for itself in its awfulness--except that, obviously, rugby is better.
Fictional Ingrates
My roommate and my neighbor and I have a Monday tradition. First: dinner at our local bar cuz food is half-price on Mondays. Second: How I Met Your Mother, which is an awesome show, and is by and about graduates of our alma mater. Third: Neighbor Steve buys beer, we flip away from The Big Bang Theory as quickly as possibly lest it injure our brains, and we watch the second half of Chuck*. We have never seen the first half of Chuck, due to HIMYM, but we very much enjoy the latter half. Every time we tune in, a gun is pointed at somebody's head (and sometimes something's threatening to blow up!). It's like skipping to the sex scenes in a romance novel. (Though we are still planning to by the DVD when it comes out and have a party where we watch only the beginning of each episode.)
However, last night's episode betrayed me. Not the main plot, the plot with Chuck's Dorkier Friend Morgan (a male Morgan). They all work in a Buy More, a big electronics store in a strip mall, and apparently something embarrassing happened with Morgan and the hot (and Asian! which is TV code for hot) sales clerk Anna. I of course don't actually know what happened but whatever. Then, as this is TV, Anna comes to like the less-attractive Morgan and they make out. Morgan is excited because Chuck was in a relationship, and maybe he was feeling left out or something? Cuz when Chuck breaks up with his girl, Morgan immediately goes on the Buy More FUCKING LOUD SPEAKER and casually rattles off, "Anna, it's been great but it's just not working out." (Or something to that effect.) Obviously, it's far better for he and Chuck to be single together (cuz y'know, THAT was going so well for them) then for Morgan to score with someone seriously cool.
WTF, mate? Morgan sorta gets his comeuppance (Chuck reveals that he's actually getting back together with his OLD gf), but it still pissed me off. That is the worst TV dumping since Berger left Carrie that Post-It note. Roommate Katey, less miffed, fondly noted the homosexual bond between male friends, and its frequency on TV. And, true. But. What a douche! I am personally laying a curse upon Morgan's head: may he never again feel a woman's touch, as he is incapable of truly appreciating it. I spit upon you! You have lost all ability to arouse empathy OR sympathy, which is half the point of a Dorkier Friend!
Sheesh. Nerds today.
*And then we watch Heroes and as much as we can of Journeyman before getting bored, but that's irrelevant to the post.
Grey Murder?
Here's my thought provoking question du jour: Is it hypocritical to support abortion ONLY in cases of rape or incest? Isn't that like saying, "A fetus is a life, abortion is murder...unless you've suffered in these specific ways. Then that fetus is NOT a life. To Hell with that fetus!" It proves that many anti-choice people actually just have a problem with women's sexuality--if they're willingly having sex, then we want to punish them by stripping them of control over their bodies. We call it murder. If the women are victims, and we don't have any way to judge them, they're no kind of sexual threat so "murder" is okay.
I know that many (maybe most?) anti-choicers don't even approve of abortion in the case of rape or incest, so obviously these points don't necessarily extend to all of them. You know, to cover my ass.
Now, this news may shock you, but I am pro-choice. I believe that abortion is alright, and should be safe and legal. And if we say "abortion is right," can we really judge the circumstances under which people get them? When liberals bristle over the implication that women have abortions for frivolous reasons by responding that most women DON'T have them for frivolous reasons*, that reinforces the idea that there are BAD reasons to get abortions. Just not wanting a baby isn't good enough. Now, for most women, the decision to get an abortion is a huge decision, one most of us hope we'll never have to make. But if the decision's not that difficult, if the woman just knows, "I don't feel like carrying a baby for 9 months, birthing it, and possibly raising it," if we believe in a woman's right to govern her own body then there is not only no excuse, but no reason to judge.
Just to lighten things up (I'm afraid I'm getting too serious on y'all), here is the crazy website that, tangentially, inspired this post:
http://www.jonathontheimpalerforpresident2008.us/Campaign_Page.html
*As Whoopi recently did on The View, not to criticize Whoopi, I'm just sayin'
Monday, November 19, 2007
Skate Fast Good, Fall Down Bad!
As some of you know, I have a passion for roller derby. This is not the kind of derby like that in Roll Bounce or whatever--it's the kind from A&E's Rollergirls. Seeing that show a few times whilst in Texas is what got me into it, and when I returned to the Republic of New York I googled the shit out of that sport. No, sadly, I am not a practitioner--I wish! But as I am without time or talent, I must be content to cheer from the bleachers. Which, this Saturday, I did--Championship game! And my favorite team, the Bronx Gridlock, won it all, in a very dramatic game with a miraculous near-comeback from the Queens of Pain--it all came down to the last 2 minutes.
For those unfamiliar, there was an article in the Times on Saturday. I think it's ok, but it makes it sound like it's not a sport, and that the crowd is men who come to gawk. Make no mistake--these women are ATHLETES. It's like rugby on skates, plus fishnets and make-up. Rugby without any assumptions about sexuality. To cite the interview with derby girl Penny Larceny:
Derby originally appealed to Penny as an opportunity to be more social and feminine. Unlike some incoming skaters, Penny had already pursued other aggressive and physical activities such as kickboxing and martial arts, but viewed derby as a way to "reclaim certain girl traits without trading in power. Skirts and makeup to go along with skill and strength, instead of replacing it."
This is the kind of thing I love more than anything. The, "Look, we can be badass and powerful AND be girls!" There's nothing sexualized about a derby match, but the women clearly feel sexy and strong, and there's a lot of individuation--everyone's uniform is a little different, everyone has their own style and personality. There are women of all sizes and shapes (though unfortunately the league is mostly white), and they all have their own strengths.
So yeah, this last game was INCREDIBLE. Bronx was killing Queens, and in the second half Queens was slowly closing the gap but clearly didn't have enough time on the clock to catch up--until Suzy Hotrod...
...scored an incredible FOURTEEN POINTS IN ONE JAM. The score was 93 to 90 Bronx, 1:13 left to go, and all the Bronx jammers were in the penalty box, so Queens was skating unopposed! But then Brigitte Barhot got out of the box and managed to keep Queens at bay! The whole crowd was on its feet.Another cool part of the game was an exchange I had with my friend Dael:
Dael: Who's the leader of the E Street Band?
Susan: Um, Bruce Springsteen?
D: No, of the actual band.
S: Oh, I dunno. Max Weinberg? Stevie Van Zandt? Those are the only names I know.
D: Who's that guy sitting up there behind us?
S: Oh my god that's Stevie Van Zandt*.
Yep, this guy:
As you should be, too.
*Full disclosure: I actually went around calling him Steve Zahn most of the night.
More On Teh Slutz
I recently posted about an essay from Nerve awhile back. I confess, I had not read it in awhile, and posted it for the sake of the Sex and the Citystuff. A few people took issue (unfortunately by email and not in the comments!) with the essay as a whole. So let's discuss.
First of all, I definitely read it that Wilner is criticizing her friends' behavior (and her own) when she discusses the sense of competition among them--'bad' behavior is praised to the point that Wilner feels she has to make her exploits sound naughtier than they were. Some people though she was endorsing this, but I strongly disagree:
But something unfortunate and inevitable has happened, which is that the freedom and beauty of the slut has been noticed, codified and replicated. Now it's not just a way to be, it's an aspiration, a point of competition. It's the girl who sees how long she can go without sleeping at her own place, like my friend Melanie. It's the girl who's trying to "collect all fifty states," like Alex, who lived down the hall from me. All this counting! Like any defined system of measurement — including the system of poodle-skirt wearing chastity — it can get oppressive.
(For the record, I don't call myself a slut. At one point I tried calling myself a playah, but that didn't feel right, either. Both terms imply a lack of respect, either for oneself or one's partners, and I don't feel like doing that even in jest. I know we're reclaiming terms and all, but I don't think my activities are strange enough to require that kind of name. As I've discussed, I have sex when I feel like it--I'm not trying to notch up that belt, but I don't deprive myself based on abstract principles.)
I agree that much of the essay is sloppy and glib, but I think at heart it's criticizing the romanticization of "sluttiness"--and there are good reasons to criticize it. The point she fails to effectively make is that there's not anything inherently wrong, or aberrant, about a woman having NSA sex, and to call that a "slut phase" is to pathologize it. It's apologetic--'oh, I know it's wrong, but there are extenuating circumstances so it's ok to do for awhile.' How bout this: don't call yourself a slut, and then you don't have to apologize for it!
Also, I don't buy the part about going to her friend's place to see her conquest of the evening. Why would the guy have come to the door with her in his boxers? He totally would've hid out in the bedroom.
I agree that much of the essay is sloppy and glib, but I think at heart it's criticizing the romanticization of "sluttiness"--and there are good reasons to criticize it. The point she fails to effectively make is that there's not anything inherently wrong, or aberrant, about a woman having NSA sex, and to call that a "slut phase" is to pathologize it. It's apologetic--'oh, I know it's wrong, but there are extenuating circumstances so it's ok to do for awhile.' How bout this: don't call yourself a slut, and then you don't have to apologize for it!
Also, I don't buy the part about going to her friend's place to see her conquest of the evening. Why would the guy have come to the door with her in his boxers? He totally would've hid out in the bedroom.
Friday, November 16, 2007
Thank You Annie Leibovitz
As a PS, here is my all-time favorite photo of the Stripes:
It was way better in the original form, as a two-page spread in Vanity Fair--I had it on my wall sophomore year of college and it made me very happy. As I hope it does you.
Fell In Love With A Girl. Unfortunately.
I do not have a crush on Jack White. Really. I swear. When I saw The White Stripes this summer, I found myself more able to fantasize about Meg than about Jack. And yet when I hear anything about his wife and children, I find myself pretty jealous. I want to pretend it's not true. Maybe it's a reverence-of-the-mythos thing, like I just don't want to think about anyone being important to Jack other than Meg. But probably it is SOME form of crush.
It helps that he went from his Sleazy Catfish look back to the Weird And Cute Jack:
(I think that latter is from the pre-Catfish days, as he's no longer quite that skinny, but you get the idea.)
It helps that he went from his Sleazy Catfish look back to the Weird And Cute Jack:
(I think that latter is from the pre-Catfish days, as he's no longer quite that skinny, but you get the idea.) I've always loved his "weirdness." And I find it strangely endearing that when he married Meg (sorry Jack, we know she's not your sister) he took her last name. (Is that hypocritical of me?) I love the band, obviously, and I love his commitment to the mythology of the band. But I really don't think I had any sort of celeb fantasy that he would one day be mine. Except that apparently I did. Because any reference to his red-haired supermodel* wife makes me feel dejected. Oh Jack! So, I confess: officially count me as having a crush. Cuz really, I haven't been this crestfallen since I found out Jon Stewart was married.
And now that I think about it, I'm actually a little disappointed whenever someone mentions Jack Black, because I wish they were talking about MY Jack. I mean, no one understands him or appreciates him the way I do, right? I totally love Jack more than anyone. I INVENTED liking Jack White. And one day he will be Jack B. Anthony.
Obviously.
[UPDATE: Please feel free to share any of your I-Can't-Believe-It's-A-Celebrity-Crush stories.]
*according to Wikipedia
And now that I think about it, I'm actually a little disappointed whenever someone mentions Jack Black, because I wish they were talking about MY Jack. I mean, no one understands him or appreciates him the way I do, right? I totally love Jack more than anyone. I INVENTED liking Jack White. And one day he will be Jack B. Anthony.
Obviously.
[UPDATE: Please feel free to share any of your I-Can't-Believe-It's-A-Celebrity-Crush stories.]
*according to Wikipedia
That Helpful Third Wheel
Your friend Susan B. does not date a lot. It's not that I'm a sad sack sitting around moaning for a boyfriend*, and I've dated nicely this year, but usually I am not in a relationship, and don't have many serious ones under my belt.
And yet.
I have always found this really funny, but my becoupled friends love to ask me for relationship advice. I don't understand why. Sometimes there's a clear reason--like, there's a specific issue and they know I have knowledge or experience in that area--but much of the time there is not. One pair in college simply tried to make me into their couples therapist. And I wonder about the impulse. Is it because I was a psych major? Because I seem generally wise? Or is it partially--and I've long suspected this--that they think my chronic singledom means I know something they don't? A lot of people in relationships romanticize being single to a degree, but I wonder if some of my friends (especially ones who are younger or don't know me THAT well) view me as somehow above the fray. There was a Times article after the Dumbledore outing about how "[t]he master wizard is not a sexual being; he has shelved personal cares and embraced a higher mission." So maybe I'm some kind of paladinic guru! (On the other hand, no one that I recall asked Gandalf for relationship advice.)
But seriously folks. I guess it's that people want an outside perspective, and a single person is more outside than someone in a different relationship that comes with its own problems and biases. But why a PERPETUALLY single person? Eh, I dunno. I don't dislike it --except in situations where I feel like people ONLY want to hang out so they can tell me about their romantic problems--and I love being there for my friends and being trusted to help, or at least sympathize, with their important issues. But I don't really understand it. One of my friends posited, mostly joking, that I was single BECAUSE of all the relationship tsuris I'd ingested over the years. She envisioned me meeting the man of my dreams, getting flooded with the memory of every bad story I'd been told, and running in the opposite direction. Which is a convenient excuse--I'm not a dateless loser, I've just been scared straight!
But, yknow, probably the Loser Hypothesis is a little more accurate :)
*That would be what we call "four years of college."
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Hate The Sinner, Not The Sin?
I've talked along these lines before, but something a bit more specific has bothered me lately--they way we discuss anorexia. In my experience, we hear the word "anorexia" and say, "Oh what an awful disorder! Unrealistic beauty standards are destroying women and girls!" But when we hear someone called an "anorexic" we say, "God, that annoying Paris-wannabe needs to fucking eat something already."*
This is in part because of the latest influx of pro-ana groups like the one on RingsWorld or the Teen Vogue message boards. But by sneering at these groups, aren't we agreeing with them that anorexia is a lifestyle choice rather than a medical condition?
I am guilty of all of this as well. I'm wondering why. Is it that most of us don't really believe, in our hearts, that anorexia nervosa is an illness? We ascribe the behavior to shallow bitches, the TV-style prom queens who possibly made us miserable when we were teens. I suppose it's that we know that these pro-ana girls think they're better than we are. But aren't we hypocrites if we don't ascribe that to their disorder? Shouldn't all this arouse more pity than hatred and derision?
One pro-ana advocate recently live-blogged her suicide. Mamavision.com is in fact a great blog regarding eating disorders, and she manages to treat the "pro-ana" community as the horror it is without ridiculing the girls who are so far gone that they proudly post photos of their feeding tubes.
So, what do you guys think? Do you find that we treat people with eating disorders like they just have a bad personality? Is some level of derision warranted--and if so, why?
*Which is reminding me of that frosh year psychopathology lecture about clinical terminology, and the PC way to use it was saying that someone "suffered from schizophrenia" rather than saying they were "a schizophrenic." The move is against defining people by their disorders. Probably applicable here, no?
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
No Love For Love
I have never been ashamed to say that I have an unconditional love for Courtney Love. She's maybe not so relevant or interesting these days, but she has represented many important things to me, and I love much of her music. Lots of people hate her because the 90's alternative music scene was highly misogynist (the fans if not the artists--Eddie Vedder in particular is an awesome guy who might get a Feminist of the Week post soon). I was about to liken her to Hillary Clinton but probably that will sound ridiculous--basically, she was a woman married to a famous, talented man who dared to have a personality, who dared to be outspoken and have a career of her own. So, :P to you if you hate on the Love.
Lots of people point to her relationship with Cobain as the justification of this attitude, which only gets me thinking about the fact that we don't give a SHIT how male artists treated their lovers, but boy do we care how female artists treat theirs. I recently learned that William S. Burroughs shot and killed his second wife, and Norman Mailer stabbed his wife with a penknife, at a party. Novelists are different than rock stars, to be sure, but think--do you know or care how your rock idols treat women? Don't you ASSUME that most of them treat them pretty badly? We as a culture tend to romanticize this kind of behavior among male rock stars, or at most shrug it off and point to the quality of their music as more important. Live Through This was a (pardon the term) seminal album, if you don't, y'know, hate women. So don't tell me that's why. If you want to argue that she's less talented that Kurt Cobain, well--aren't most musicians? Is every artist we let off the hook as talented as Kurt Cobain was? Ha, yeah right.
And I'm sorry, she did not kill him. And she was hated before he died, anyway.
And I'm sorry, she did not kill him. And she was hated before he died, anyway.
Everyone Sucks at Math (Not Just Girls!)
Here is something that has bothered me as long as I can remember: statistics show that the average number of sexual partners for straight men is higher than the average number of sexual partners for straight women. Uh...how is this possible? Each straight man is having sex with a straight woman, so the average MUST be equal. This is so annoying, and this August the New York Times agreed with me. To quote:
Dr. Aral said she cannot determine what the true number of sex partners is for men and women, but, she added, “I would say that men have more partners on average but the difference is not as big as it seems in the numbers we are looking at.”
Dr. Gale is still troubled. He said invoking women who are outside the survey population cannot begin to explain a difference of 75 percent in the number of partners, as occurred in the study saying men had seven partners and women four. Something like a prostitute effect, he said, “would be negligible.” The most likely explanation, by far, is that the numbers cannot be trusted...The problem, he said, is that when such data are published, with no asterisk next to them saying they can’t be true, they just “reinforce the stereotypes of promiscuous males and chaste females.”
So, there*.And today's stupidity: in this week's Savage Love, a guest expert gives us this gem:
"Most people have either had a three-way or thought about it. Yes, even women. "
Even women??? The context of this is guy/girl/girl threesomes, so wouldn't more women than men HAVE to be into it??? Jeez. That is incredibly dumb.
*Neighbor Steve is arguing with me over whether or not the statistics are actually impossible, and my response: it is impossible if the male and female sample sizes are even roughly equal, which in these surveys (and in the world at large) they usually are. For the math to work, the number of women would have to be several times the number of men.
Friday, November 9, 2007
Stop the Presses!
I was in the middle of a totally different post (below) when I came across this on Jezebel:
That's right. Christopher Hitchens, whom I HATE HATE HATE* talks about how awful body waxing is: "I had no idea it would be so excruciating. The combined effect was like being tortured for information that you do not possess, with intervals for a (incidentally very costly) sandpaper handjob." So, while I won't go as far as Jezebel as to say this redeems him, it definitely gives him a few grudging points.
*Hate.
*Hate.
You've got some nerve!
As in, because I'm ripping off another one of their articles and showing it to you.
A friend of mine (hi Kyle!) emailed me with a question about sex-positive attitudes in Second Wave versus Third Wave feminism. I sent him a way-too-long email in response, but anyway: It brought me back to Carrie Hill Wilner's essay on Nerve, I, Slut, which talks about the sexual liberty that characterizes the Third Wave--and how this liberty is often twisted into something cartoonish, inauthentic, a new standard to which we must pretend to adhere.
Also, it talks about Sex and the City, and how the show did NOT represent Wilner's sexuality, or that of her friends. I have had trouble articulating this--I have mixed feelings about the show, which I find entertaining but also grating and somehow irking. Wilner puts it well:
But what really bothered me about the show was that it presumed to speak for me, the youngish urban female, and her supposedly newfound ability to Have Sex Like a Man and Use Bad Words. It was "shocking," "brutally candid," "honest." The media spoke of Sex and the City as if it were the fucking Rosetta stone of femininity — as if women could no longer understand themselves without the assistance of premium cable... According to Sex, promiscuity was a glamorous pathology, a mutation of the second X chromosome, something unnatural, temporary, alien — like obesity and cancer, an ailment of modernity that must be endured by those who yearn for the ruddy health of monogamy...I guess what I'm trying to say here is that my sexual touchstone isn't a neurotic bitch with a bikini wax.
[My emphasis.]
There is one episode that exemplifies the difference between what SATC espoused and what I did. It was called "Boy, Girl, Boy, Girl..." and Carrie's plot was that she was dating a slightly younger (late 20's?) guy who reveals he's bisexual, and has had a long-term relationship with a man (plus two with women). FIRST of all, I was alarmed by the squareness of the show's stance on male bisexuality--even Samantha says "dump him." But Carrie goes with it, and ends up at a party with all his friends, who get introductions like, "This is Sue, she's having Ryan and Bob's baby" or whatever, and who've all dated each other in various gender combinations, and Carrie's getting skeeved. Then they all play spin the bottle, and Carrie for the first time in her life has to kiss a girl--played by Alanis Morissette. The kiss isn't bad or good (Carries says it "tasted like chicken"), but she realizes this is not her scene and bails.
So, my problem? I would much rather hang with those crazy kids who freak Carrie out so much than with Carrie and her Gucci-worshipping, pseudo-enlightened friends. (And let's not even talk about Candace Bushnell herself, who just seems awful.) For one thing, I doubt any of my female friends will make it to 33 or whatever without having kissed a girl.* And while when I first saw the episode I conceded that I'd be a little weirded out to be in a social circle where everyone had dated each other, that is actually starting to become my reality so I can't complain. But the real point is, not only do these non-Carrie people have a GENUINELY open attitude about sex and sexuality, they seem to spend more time having sex than talking about it, unlike our Fab Four. I mean, spin the bottle? Awesome. Hopefully the guys made out with each other, too, but SATC would never show us THAT. (Actually, do they ever show us two guys kissing? I'm not sure.)
I did, however, love Miranda. And still do. Miranda was the actual feminist, incredibly smart, loved her job and excelled at it, had a baby and married on her terms, when she wanted to, to the best guy we meet on the show, and basically Has It All. She is also the only one who seems genuinely comfortable with both relationships AND casual sex, and manages to date a black guy with it being all, Look, She's Dating a Black Guy! And Cynthia Nixon was the best actor on the show. Her plotline in the above episode actually redeemed it for me,** as it concerned her insecurities about whether she was female enough, which is something a lot of successful women grapple with. So, kudos to her, but blah to the rest of the show for being so self-congratulatory while also being so narrow.
*Especially since I have probably already kissed them.
**And may or may not have made me cry.
There is one episode that exemplifies the difference between what SATC espoused and what I did. It was called "Boy, Girl, Boy, Girl..." and Carrie's plot was that she was dating a slightly younger (late 20's?) guy who reveals he's bisexual, and has had a long-term relationship with a man (plus two with women). FIRST of all, I was alarmed by the squareness of the show's stance on male bisexuality--even Samantha says "dump him." But Carrie goes with it, and ends up at a party with all his friends, who get introductions like, "This is Sue, she's having Ryan and Bob's baby" or whatever, and who've all dated each other in various gender combinations, and Carrie's getting skeeved. Then they all play spin the bottle, and Carrie for the first time in her life has to kiss a girl--played by Alanis Morissette. The kiss isn't bad or good (Carries says it "tasted like chicken"), but she realizes this is not her scene and bails.
So, my problem? I would much rather hang with those crazy kids who freak Carrie out so much than with Carrie and her Gucci-worshipping, pseudo-enlightened friends. (And let's not even talk about Candace Bushnell herself, who just seems awful.) For one thing, I doubt any of my female friends will make it to 33 or whatever without having kissed a girl.* And while when I first saw the episode I conceded that I'd be a little weirded out to be in a social circle where everyone had dated each other, that is actually starting to become my reality so I can't complain. But the real point is, not only do these non-Carrie people have a GENUINELY open attitude about sex and sexuality, they seem to spend more time having sex than talking about it, unlike our Fab Four. I mean, spin the bottle? Awesome. Hopefully the guys made out with each other, too, but SATC would never show us THAT. (Actually, do they ever show us two guys kissing? I'm not sure.)
I did, however, love Miranda. And still do. Miranda was the actual feminist, incredibly smart, loved her job and excelled at it, had a baby and married on her terms, when she wanted to, to the best guy we meet on the show, and basically Has It All. She is also the only one who seems genuinely comfortable with both relationships AND casual sex, and manages to date a black guy with it being all, Look, She's Dating a Black Guy! And Cynthia Nixon was the best actor on the show. Her plotline in the above episode actually redeemed it for me,** as it concerned her insecurities about whether she was female enough, which is something a lot of successful women grapple with. So, kudos to her, but blah to the rest of the show for being so self-congratulatory while also being so narrow.
*Especially since I have probably already kissed them.
**And may or may not have made me cry.
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
Make Love, Not Domestic Cold War
Feministing is standing firmly against this article in the (British) Times Online. The article, by "sex expert" Dr. Pam Spurr, contends that women who think they can just not ever have sex with their partners if they don't feel like it are ruining their relationships. Feministing is, of course, upholding the ever-embattled truth that a woman's sexuality belongs to that woman and no one else. But I think we need to give this article a fair shake. Feministing says, "Forget working out whatever issues are making you not want to have sex in the first place. Better that you just shut up and put out as to not piss off your hubby" (original emphasis). But really, the article agrees: "The solution is to take a holistic approach to a relationship and understand that every part of it – careers, finances, family issues, sex – needs nurturing and understanding... Never be bullied into sexual activity that turns you off or be pressured into sex that doesn’t satisfy you. But always be prepared to discuss your feelings and desires and listen to his."
My parents raised me to believe that sex is what keeps a marriage together, so perhaps I'm biased. But the article makes a spot-on point: we have no qualms about blaming a man when he stops wanting to have sex, so we should equally feel that the woman has some sort of responsibility to her partner. Spurr isn't saying, "women must have sex whenever their husbands want it, no matter what, or else they'll be deserted and alone!!!" She's saying that you can't just stop having sex altogether, for months, without talking about it, and expect your partner to be satisfied--whatever your gender is. It's nothing Dan Savage hasn't said time and time again.
So, while I agree that likening sex to taking out the trash is not the best way to get couples screwing again, I think we need to cut this woman some slack.
Friday, November 2, 2007
But what IS this "Third Wave" of which you speak??
What made me broach this topic? A post on Jezebel, my favorite source to steal from, about the 35th anniversary of Ms. magazine and why they can't bring themselves to care. A quote:
It's like, according to them, you're not a real feminist unless you're doing something boring and constructive without any flash or pizazz. Why does everything have to be so dour? There are fun aspects about being a woman, you know. That's probably the biggest divide between second and third wave feminism. There's this emphasis on the "serious" shit, which is indicative in their coverage of grave news, and insistence of an anti-pornography stance.
I basically agree with them, though I do fear that many of today's feminists choose the personal OVER the political, and that we need both pizazz AND activism. But anyway, it reminded me of a Nerve* article I read awhile back that gave a good explanation of third wave feminism. I link you to the beginning of the article, but the stuff about what the third wave means to the author (Ada Calhoun) is on the second page. Here's a particularly nice quote:
I think growing up post-AIDS, we who were born in or around the '70s had to be more honest and upfront with each other about sex; it made us more equitable, curious and fair. We became well educated about date rape but sensible enough to laugh at the absurd rigidity of the Antioch Rules.
Third Wave women, as I know them, are financially independent. They're happy alone, or they're looking to create families with partners rather than providers. They are politically active, voting, signing petitions, contacting their representatives and being conscious consumers and respectful employers and employees. They enjoy sex, especially thanks to the enthusiastic presence of feminist porn companies, anthologies like Gynomite, sex-toy stores like Good Vibrations and Babeland. They are represented in the media by reasonable, funny feminist writers like Jennifer Baumgardner, Rebecca Traister and Lynn Harris; on TV by Tina Fey and Samantha Bee. Third Wave women are women from all over who have an innate sense of their own value and potential...They are self-aware, adventurous and live supportive lives with men and with each other.
Third Wave women, as I know them, are financially independent. They're happy alone, or they're looking to create families with partners rather than providers. They are politically active, voting, signing petitions, contacting their representatives and being conscious consumers and respectful employers and employees. They enjoy sex, especially thanks to the enthusiastic presence of feminist porn companies, anthologies like Gynomite, sex-toy stores like Good Vibrations and Babeland. They are represented in the media by reasonable, funny feminist writers like Jennifer Baumgardner, Rebecca Traister and Lynn Harris; on TV by Tina Fey and Samantha Bee. Third Wave women are women from all over who have an innate sense of their own value and potential...They are self-aware, adventurous and live supportive lives with men and with each other.
Some people argue that what we're going through now is not actually a new wave--more like Second Wave 2.0. I think there's truth to that, but it's not the whole story. This new wave has broadened itself, and our causes extend to race (Second Wave was notoriously white, to the point that some black feminists had a different name for themselves--Womanists), sexuality (hurray for LGBTQ!), and the notion that there are many ways to be a feminist. There are still core issues upon which the movement rests--there is no feminism without contraception, and housewifery is still a tricky issue--but the guiding forces are freedom and collaboration.
There are plenty of cliches I can throw out there. We today don't think of bras as tools of oppression but as sources of physical comfort (especially us well-endowed girls--ouch!) and expressions of sexuality. We don't have to choose between marriage and identity, and we can find men who share our beliefs and are allies as well as friends and lovers.
Perhaps all of this is obvious, but it's good to lay a groundwork. So, what do you guys think? What does the third wave mean to you, and what parts are confusing/unclear? What differences do you see between these recent waves, and what experiences do you have explaining feminism/having it explained to you?
*My other beloved source of theft.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
